A Texan conservative Anglican -- yes, a square peg -- ponders both churchly and worldly things and enjoys his new church.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

About the Consecration of Libby Lane - and of Philip North

I have said very little
about the consecration of Libby Lane as the first woman bishop of the Church of
England.Unlike Paul Williamson, I
am just not that worked up about it.I can certainly think of any number of male bishops who are far more
objectionable.

But seeing I am from the
fire-breathing, gun-carrying Texas Anglican wing of the Holy Catholic Church, I
suppose a few might want to know of my views so . . .

It may surprise that I do
not personally find women bishops a communion breaker.But I understand those who do.I, too, consider breaking 2000 years of church tradition
problematic at best.Without going
into details, I would prefer not to have women bishops over me, although I
would much prefer an orthodox woman to an apostate man.

But that is part of the
problem.There may be robustly
orthodox women bishops out there somewhere, but I cannot recall a one.I can, however, recall any number of
apostate women “bishops” who have done great harm to the church. (I should add
here that Libby Lane seems more sensible than these.)And that experience nudges me to think there is more to the
church tradition of a male priesthood and episcopate than most give it credit
for.Perhaps women who lack
compunction about this aspect of church tradition tend to be prone to disregard
the rest of Tradition as well.Perhaps
such departure from apostolic tradition displeases the Lord and forfeits his
blessing more than we think.I do
not presume to know, but I look upon recent church history and tremble.

But my biggest concern is
how long will there be a place in the Church of England for those traditionalists
and conservative evangelicals who wish to hold on more tightly to tradition,
who object to women priests and bishops?I am afraid not long at all.I suspect the prevailing attitude is “We will tolerate those misogynist
bigots out of our wonderful tolerant niceness . . . for now.”This seems typical:

What, though, should we make of the consecration
that will follow a week later, of a man who will not be touched by any hands
that have treated a woman as if she were a real bishop. This seems an
extraordinary concession towards a view of women, and of authority, that the
vast majority of churchgoers regard as immoral and unchristian. Is it the
chivalrous treatment of a defeated enemy, or a concession to the misogynist
bigotry that has done so much to disfigure Christianity? Mr. [Philip] North
may not have been responsible for these arrangements. An important point is
that he is clearly going to make a good bishop, whatever his views on women. He
has spent most of his career working among poor people in unfashionable places.
If men of his views are to be promoted at all – as both archbishops have
promised they will be – then he is clearly a well-qualified example, and may be
almost as good at the job as many of the women who will follow Libby Lane. In
the generous and joyful spirit that should attend her consecration, we will
welcome his, as well. But mostly hers.

Methinks there will not be
many more bishops like Philip North.And that is what bothers me greatly.